Re: Germanic preterite optative

The oldest IE languag recorded, Hittite, had a tense system based on
primary and secundary endings.

This suggests that the IE indeed had a tense system, but this was
based the opposition between primary and secondary endings, aws in
Hittite.

The endings of conjunctive and optative seem to be appended to
simple or derivated stems without any preceeding tense markings.

However, one may wonder: Were these mood markers really mood markers
at the earliest time. They might have been tense endings that later
got another function?

Well, this is my opinion, but I do not know how standard or accepted
this opinion is.

-----------------------------------

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "raonath" <raonath@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@>
wrote:
> >
> > What is the origin of the Germanic strong preterite optative
endings,
> > corresponding to Gothic <be:rjau, be:reis, be:ri, be:reima,
be:reith,
> > be:reina>, OHG <ba:ri, ba:ri:s, ba:ri, ba:ri:m, ba:ri:t,
ba:ri:n>?
> > The obvious source is the IE athematic present optative, which
like
> > most of the Germanic forms has zero grade, but I don't understand
> > why a present-tense form should become a preterite form. Is
there
> > an explanation for this shift of tense, if indeed this is the
true
> > origin of the Germanic strong preterite optative?
>
> I have only a rleated question: Did PIE optative have a "tense"?
>
> Along the same lines, both Szeremenyi and Beekes (in their
handbooos)
> who are often quite at oppositve ends, suggest that PIE moods were
> originally formed directly from the root and were not based on
> "tense/apsect stems". How prevelant is this opinion?
>
> Nath Rao
>